Internet

It’s time to stop using Authy

This entry was posted in Commentary Tools and tagged Authy Internet software Twilio on by

Multi-factor authentication is a valuable security measure. If someone guesses or steals your password, it’s another barrier to their getting into your account. Using an application that generates access codes is one of the better ways to do it. Several applications are available, most of which use the same protocol. The Open Authentication architecture sets the standard, and many applications implement it, offering advantages or disadvantages. I’ve used Authy from Twilio for some time, but it’s time to leave.

The biggest dangers of using a 2FA application are a breach in its security and the loss of its availability. Authy has been deficient on both counts. In June, Twilio suffered a data breach. The exposed information wasn’t critical, but it could aid malicious parties in getting 2FA codes by trickery. Worse, Authy’s availability on various devices and computers has been erratic.
(more…)

The march of Internet censorship

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship Internet on by

Legislation all over the USA is attacking freedom to communicate over the Internet. Some states have enacted age-verification requirements that endanger anonymous speech and limit minors’ access to information they may urgently need. Others are enacting bans on “deceptive” information, leaving open the questions of just what will be deemed deceptive and how people can defend themselves against such claims. An example of the latter is California’s AB 2655, recently signed into law. FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition have issued statements against it, while left-wing media sites have often been sympathetic. I posted earlier about how AP gave Harris’s call for “oversight” and “regulation” of websites as merely wanting “increased accountability.”
(more…)

Please don’t spread misinformation: Part 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged ethics Internet on by

A few weeks ago, I discussed the mostly innocent spreading of misinformation through jokes and satire. A person on Mastodon said I should have called them lies, but a lie means intent to deceive. A lot of widespread claims start without malice. That seems to have been the case with the story of Haitian immigrants stealing and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. It now appears to have started with a Facebook post that posted a garbled version of a neighbor’s claim without expecting anything significant to come of it. Others picked it up, embellishing it from vague stories they’d heard or from their imagination. Another source was claims of immigrants poaching on waterfowl, which may or may not have been true but is in a far different category from killing pets.
(more…)

Please don’t spread misinformation 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics Internet on by

Someone I know posted an alleged quotation from J. D. Vance. Most of it was a real quotation, but the last sentence was made up. It proposed something which I don’t think Vance or any other major candidate has proposed. I didn’t think it was much more bizarre than what he has actually proposed. Since it had no attribution, I tried looking it up. It didn’t take long to establish that if Vance had ever said the last sentence, it wasn’t in that context. I replied that it was fake news, assuming that the poster had picked it up from somebody else.

He responded that the supposed quotation was a joke, and his referring to Vance as “Jack Daniels Vance” was supposed to make that clear. It didn’t for me, and I think it wouldn’t have for many other people. It’s common on the Web to make mocking alterations in people’s names while saying true things about them.
(more…)

Surgeon General wants compulsory warnings on the Web 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship Internet law on by

Threats to freedom on the Internet keep popping up. The latest outrage is a proposal by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to compel social media websites to deliver a warning of “potential mental health harms.” He doesn’t claim that social media have been scientifically shown to damage mental health; rather he says “social media has not been proved safe.”

What would it take to “prove” them safe? When the burden of proof is shifted to the negative, people can make unlimited claims of possible harm, and the defenders must somehow show these arbitrary assertions are false. Murthy has even cited lack of evidence as a cause for panic.

He has asserted that the situation is an “emergency.” In other words, he wants Congress to rush the decree through without debate.

Compulsory speech is, except in limited cases, a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has to include the freedom not to speak. Americans may not be compelled to pledge allegiance to the flag or to recite a prayer. Forcing website owners to say “We haven’t proven our site won’t harm your mental health” is an outrage.
(more…)